[arch-general] Adopting start-stop-daemon in archlinux

Clemens Fruhwirth clemens at endorphin.org
Thu Sep 8 10:53:12 EDT 2011

On 8 September 2011 14:03, Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 8 September 2011 19:35, Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana
> <dottorblaster at archlinux.us> wrote:
>> I like the idea, this seems KISS as it is now.
>> It could be a better way to manage services, kudos!
> It could also be incorporated into the rc.d functions, making it
> elegant to use from within the scripts.
> The question is, can a few lines of shell code (as has been
> demonstrated by the bugfix in the bug report above), manage the
> problem sufficiently? If yes, then a full, separate program to handle
> this stuff is _not_ KISS.

KISS is a good argument against overcomplicated architectures.
A code base with copies of the same boilerplate code is a good
argument against KISS.
So, KISS and abstraction are sometimes opposing forces.

In this discussion, I have to argue for the abstraction given the
sheer amount of script that are out there in the wild. If we touch
them all, we should touch them in a way that our gain from this effort
is not strictly limited to one specific deployment of a single fix.
You could call it premature abstraction if you will. This should give
us a single knob you can turn when you need change in all of them.

I am fine just as fine with making a rc helper function this knob as I
am with going with start-stop-daemon.
Fruhwirth Clemens http://clemens.endorphin.org

More information about the arch-general mailing list